| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Poor performance -- poor config? |
| From: | Robert Petkus <rpetkus@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:59:10 -0400 |
| Cc: | Petkus Robert <rpetkus@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) |
|
Folks, I'm trying to configure a system (server + DS4700 disk array) that can offer the highest performance for our application. We will be reading and writing multiple threads of 1-2GB files with 1MB block sizes. DS4700 config: (16) 500 GB SATA disks (3) 4+1 RAID 5 arrays and (1) hot spare == (3) 2TB LUNs. (2) RAID arrays are on controller A, (1) RAID array is on controller B. 512k segment size Server Config:
IBM x3550, 9GB RAM, RHEL 5 x86_64 (2.6.18)
The (3) LUNs are sdb, sdc {both controller A}, sdd {controller B}My original goal was to use XFS and create a highly optimized config. Here is what I came up with: Create separate partitions for XFS log files: sdd1, sdd2, sdd3 each 150M -- 128MB is the maximum allowable XFS log size. The XFS "stripe unit" (su) = 512k to match the DS4700 segment size The "stripe width" ( (n-1)*sunit )= swidth=2048k = sw=4 (a multiple of su) 4k is the max block size allowable on x86_64 since 4k is the max kernel page size [root@~]# mkfs.xfs -l logdev=/dev/sdd1,size=128m -d su=512k -d sw=4 -f /dev/sdb [root@~]# mount -t xfs -o context=system_u:object_r:unconfined_t,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,logdev=/dev/sdd1 /dev/sdb /data0 And the write performance is lousy compared to ext3 built like so: [root@~]# mke2fs -j -m 1 -b4096 -E stride=128 /dev/sdc [root@~]# mount -t ext3 -o noatime,nodiratime,context="system_u:object_r:unconfined_t:s0",reservation /dev/sdc /data1 What am I missing? Thanks! -- Robert Petkus RHIC/USATLAS Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Physics Dept. - Bldg. 510A Upton, New York 11973 http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC http://www.acf.bnl.gov |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE 966562 - XFS should not be looking at filp reference counts, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Poor performance -- poor config?, Justin Piszcz |
| Previous by Thread: | TAKE 966562 - XFS should not be looking at filp reference counts, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Poor performance -- poor config?, Justin Piszcz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |